That someone seems to be the Republicans in the Congress.
Never mind that no Republicans voted for the 1,000-page bill crafted by the industry lobby that no lawmaker bothered to read before voting.
Ms. Kathleen Sebelius claims it is beyond her expectation how complicated this legislature really is.
That sounds so familiar and so bogus.
Thanks to the US Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts who inexplicably flipped at the last moment and voted with the "minority" who therefore became the majority in affirming the US health care (insurance) reform ridiculed as "ObamaCare" is constitutional, this monstrosity will be foisted on the nation later this year.
Just as a reminder, none of these people, Dems, Republicans, Supreme Court judges, Obama administration officials, and Mr. Obama himself, will not need to suffer ObamaCare. They have their own healthcare plan for life, generously funded by tax-payers.
None of the Hollywood celebrities who pushed ObamaCare will have to suffer either. They have money to buy whatever care they want.
From Investors Business Daily (4/11/2013):
Sebelius Tries To Blame GOP For Coming ObamaCare Failures
Health Care: As Democrats grow increasingly worried that ObamaCare will explode on the launch pad just as midterm elections get going, the Obama administration seeks to pin blame on Republicans. Good luck with that.
Earlier this week, Health and Human Services head Kathleen Sebelius admitted that she didn't realize how complicated getting ObamaCare off the ground would be.
Sebelius complained that "no one fully anticipated" the difficulties involved in implementing ObamaCare, or how confusing it would be with the public.
She wasn't talking about the massive and impossible task of imposing central planning on one-sixth of the nation's economy.
Instead, she was trying to find a way to blame Republicans for ObamaCare's failures when the inevitable problems start emerging.
Rather than say "let's get on board, let's make this work," recalcitrant Republicans have forced her to engage in "state-by-state political battles," Sebelius said at a Harvard School of Public Health forum. "The politics has been relentless."
So let's see if we get this. Democrats shoved an unpopular, expensive, ill-conceived and poorly written law down the country's throat with no Republican support, and without bothering to see whether states would want to take on the thankless and costly task of helping the feds implement it.
And now that many of these states are rebelling, it's the Republicans' fault?
Sebelius' fellow Democrat, West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, had a more accurate take on the problem the administration faces: the law is "probably the most complicated piece of legislation ever passed by the United States Congress" and "if it isn't done right the first time, it will just simply get worse."
Rockefeller, like a growing number of Democrats, realizes that ObamaCare is shaping up to be a political disaster for the party next November.
The influential Cook Political Report noted earlier this month that almost all of the Democratic insiders they talked to "voiced concern about the potential for the issue to hurt Democrats in 2014."
And just what could explain these concerns?
Maybe it's because even Sebelius now admits that ObamaCare will force insurance claims up 32%.
Or possibly it's because, despite endless assurances that the insurance exchanges would be ready on time, the administration had to delay for a year a key feature meant to give small business a choice of health plans.
Or because neither Sebelius nor the states have provided evidence they can get the rest of the exchanges ready by Oct. 1, when ObamaCare's open enrollment begins.
Or perhaps Democrats' fears stem from state insurance commissioners warning of a rate shock once ObamaCare's "community rating" rules and benefit mandates start. Or from rising evidence the law is hurting job growth as small businesses try to avoid its costs.
None of this, mind you, has anything to do with Republicans. And if the GOP were smart, it'd be focused on making sure that, come next November, the public knows that, too.
30-Day free trial by following the link.
Tokyo Time
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
13 comments:
The entire law was a compromise because the conservatives don't want any sort of national health insurance or national health. That is purely protecting corporate interests who make lots of money screwing up the health care system. What we really need is national health insurance. With our current political system it won't happen.
The law has some major benefits to regular people. Insurance companies can no longer boot me off insurance, deny claims etc for pre-existing conditions. This is a really big deal if you have a chronic medical condition. This one alone can mean financial ruin due to the insane cost of medical care.
The youth insurance clause is also a huge help. It gave many younger people insurance they would never be able to get on their own. Without that insurance many would end up with huge medical bills they can't afford to pay. A broken arm can turn into a ruined credit rating and court judgments. What a nice way to start off your life, with your financial ability ruined while the job market sucks so people can't afford insurance OR the medical bills.
Some of the other minor parts like forcing insurance companies to put a percentage of their income into claims payment helps. Other rules that prevent some of the insurance abuse that shoves costs back on patients also helps.
Right now even with insurance being financially ruined is almost a given. Most of the US bankruptcies are due to medical debt and many of those people HAD insurance.
A recent minor knee surgery cost over $20,000. The US needs a major change to health care. We got this weird law as a compromise. There are parts I am not happy with but some of what is in there is literally saving people from financial ruin and bankruptcy. I watched a collection agency get a small claims court to garnish an old womans meager social security payments to pay a medical bill she hadn't paid because she couldn't afford to. This is just wrong. I have seen many people forced into a corner by medical debt to the point of losing homes.
ObamaCare– new best reason to emigrate from the USA?
Wow, it looks like one of the lobbyists or the fed officials commenting...
"We got this weird law as a compromise." Excuse me, compromise between whom? Lobbyists and the Democrats who voted for it?
Give me a break.
Vyse, yes. Next one will be the Obama grab of people's retirement fund.
It was funny and irritating at the same time to see many Japanese on Twitter solidly in favor of ObamaCare last year around the time of Supreme Court decision. Never mind that it was (and is) none of their business. Many were breathlessly quoting Michael Moore and other Hollywood celebrities. I guess they may get to enjoy the benefits of ObamaCare via TPP that their government is so eager to join.
Hmm… Don't most civilised countries in Europe have such systems (either national insurance or strongly regulated private companies)? The same goes for pension plans!
Some of them are badly run, some others much better, but they have mostly decreased ruin and misery. Of course, those countries where these schemes work relatively well are the same that hold their budget and debt under control, go figure…
... civilized countries in Europe.
Hahahaha that's a good one.
we need to worry about the problems at hand before taking on more, we have a failing social security, a ridiculous national debt, and a plethora of politicians who are supposed to protect the people but have vested interests with major corporations who put profits over peoples health. Many scientists have proven so many negative health effects to consuming GMO foods so the obama administration passes a protection act for a private corporation (which the government isn't authorised to do) and then they want to make everyone pay for all the horrible problems we are going to harvest from this.... this is unAmerican and wrong
First time I write here so I want to express my gratitude for the author of this blog : it is the best source of information about Fukushima's nuclear disaster I have found on the whole internet. Bravo.
That is why I come here. Find informations on this topic and on the recovery of Japan, a country I love on many aspects. You're the boss here and I won't tell you what you have to write but I am a little annoyed by those political digressions from the main theme...
Keep on the good work anyway and keep us informed of this evenement. As a french, I am afraid that one day or another we will face such an accident in one (or more) of our 59 reactors...
Thanks Crosstif for your comment. This blog used to be mainly a financial and economics blog, until March 11, 2011, talking about Federal Reserve balance sheets and the government policies. Main themes of the blog, if anything, is how the governments world-over have been screwing up everything they touch, whether it is melted-through reactors or QE4Eva or grabbing depositors' money.
Crosstif, for your daily Fukushima dose, there are other sites spewing full of shit and falsehood. My most recent find is the site called Fukushima Voice, which seems to be behind the thyroid "abnormalities" fear-mongering.
I'd rather read about Obamacare and Cyprus here than read the crap just because it is about Fukushima.
This is a personal blog, the admin is generous enough (or crazy enough) to continue to report on Fukushima for the rest of us for free for over two years. I doubt that there is much revenue from ads or donations. Keep your frustrations to yourself.
If we believe that governments have a net negative impact on everything they do then we should try to do without courts, without laws, without any military whatsoever, without public schools, without roads, without any regulatory body (aviation, transportation, patents, food, pharmaceuticals, you name it), without cash, without prisons, without police, without anti trust bodies.
There are two sides to health care: costs and benefits. Is the US efficient in managing its health care costs? Never mind who pays (the public administration, a private insurance or an individual), are the medial bills reasonable? If bills are too high, what is the reason?
Benefits wise, do we think that people should be entitled to an affordable treatment when they break an arm? or would we rather live in a society where you die of gangrene if you have a bad or non-existent credit rating? As individuals, would we like to hedge our risks of falling sick? If so, would we prefer an insurance that can choose whether to pay our claims or would we rather get refunded of our health costs as a matter of course?
Private health insurance: what if we apply the same mechanism to bond issuance? Investors will pay the principal and bond issuers will later decide whether the investor claims on coupons and principal should be entertained. I can easily see how financially sick lenders will not be granted any payment: they are unlikely to lend any more money so what is the point in fulfilling any obligation towards them?
OBAMACARE increases outsourcing in 2014? The U.S. healthcare reform (“Obama Care” or the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”) is intended to pressure large and small employers through force and taxation. Enacted in July 2010, the end result will show North American companies deciding to send customer support, sales, lead generation and appointment setting jobs offshore to stay competitive or risk going out of business. Many business owners will hire a dedicated bilingual employee nearshore who is 100% qualified for their project. Financially speaking, ESL call center employees in Costa Rica are as effective as transitional in-house staff for half of the cost. This proven strategy will give small to medium sized companies the option to scale up their BPO staff without getting caught in the Obamacare challenge in 2014.
http://www.obamacareoutsourcing.com/
Post a Comment